leagueoflegendsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Karthus/@comment-8506165-20140305190817/@comment-8506165-20140315174805
Let's see... "1st'.'' The question is RUSHING RoA or Rylai? Karthus needs mana & health early, and reach a higher power level with RoA + Archangel compares to building Rylai 1st. " Tear = Mana. Rylai's = Health. Rylai's actually gives you more health and AP early on than RoA due to the stacking system, so... what's your point? They have differing power levels at differing points, particularly dependent on how much you favour the passives. And this is of course ignoring that buildpaths are situational - rushing my Rylai's might be a great idea in one game and a poor one in another. I'm really just talking about one compared to the other. "'''2nd. A Karthus that kites bruisers & carries is a bad one. Ever heard "Karthus is positioning himself perfectly for this fight, IN THE MIDDLE of enemy team" coming from all casters over the world?" So you're saying I should be in the middle of the enemy team? Hey, that AoE slowing field I mentioned earlier would be nice. That aside though - the game isn't just constantly teamfights from the moment anyone finishes their first item. Ganked by the jungler? 3v3 Drake fight? Kiting could be useful in both of those scenarios, and more. Or permaslowing an enemy for different reasons (peeling, chasing, etc.) "Read ''2nd ''again, by the time you learn to do it, the enemy should be already low when you die. And when the enemy is low, it spells "Liandry passive is shitty now"." So... I go into the enemy team, die, fire off a few Qs before I press R... and your problem is that my item stopped being as effective when they were really low? Easy pickings for my ult or the rest of my team? Well, it's clearly horrendous then. "Still, pros, yes, real pros (not "random guy of ROG.NET that came up with useless graphs and think he discovered a great secret that people out there don't know") still opt for Void." "Random guy of ROG.NET" (who was asked by a pro player to do the analysis I linked in the first place) actually advocates for Void Staff. He used it in his comparison because it's so good and at no point says that you should omit it if you're running Liandry's. Nor did I. Please pay more attention to what I'm saying and don't put words in my mouth, because you're wasting time attacking points I didn't make. "http://www.probuilds.net/champions/Karthus [1]" Hm. I'll play ball with this, though. In the past 12 days, at the time of my post, RoA Karthus sits on a 36% winrate (four of eleven games), when played by professional players in non-tournament matches. Rylai's, the item you're assuring me is terrible on Karthus has been picked by the pro players you cite in place of RoA (don't those noobs know it's a terrible idea?!) - admittedly only twice, with one other player having no RoA but a Giant's Belt that suggests a Rylai's in their future - but all three of them won. We could look further back, try and get more accurate figures for winrates with each item, seeing as we've a small data pool here, but I think the fact that the pros you yourself "worship" (to use your terminology) pick this item AND win with it, without RoA shows that maybe I have something in my "RoA not necessary" theory, hm? "My last sentence "Everyone & their dog are smarter than you" is just true. When "everyone and their dog" build something that works better, they are smarter. When you think it's an insult, remember you are the one who started the insult against a large group of people with a decent, try and true build. You didn't question. You insulted directly then back it up with thoughtless arguments." I questioned the orthodox build with arguments to back up my points. I did not at any point question people's intelligence, I said that their meta build was wrong. I could have prefixed everything with "in my opinion" if you like, but obviously it's my opinion if I'm saying it, hm? Nonetheless, if questioning meta builds was never done, we'd still be playing with full-damage Irelia, Elise and Pantheon before someone realised they do better with sole damage sources that work particularly well on them and then tanking up to stay alive to put out damage longer. And let's not even mention the rise and fall of Blue Ez. But clearly all those people who went against what was the "decent, try and true build sic" back then were just idiots and just happened to be onto something good by sheer chance. Or is it not always a bad thing, in actuality? Regardless, a modicum of civility from you would be rather appreciated should you wish to continue this argument. I'm fine with dry wit, sarcasm or a slightly acerbic tone (or hell, humourous YouTube videos to poke a little fun, at that), but typing out points to someone that just trades straight insults back seems a poor way to spend my time.